Interview scorecard template

Technical Assistant interview scorecard

Evaluate Technical Assistant candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check volume and accuracy of routine technical work: equipment calibration logs, stock and consumables ordering, ticket queues in Jira or Freshservice, test rig setup, weekly report. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationdocumentation controlequipment calibrationtechnical supportticket triage
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate names throughput figures, kept calibration and maintenance records current, and cleared assigned tickets or setups without chasing from supervisors. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate describes a specific procedure they redesigned, plus the before and after in hours saved, errors avoided, or downtime cut. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check volume and accuracy of routine technical work: equipment calibration logs, stock and consumables ordering, ticket queues in Jira or Freshservice, test rig setup, weekly report turnaround.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
  • Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
  • Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
  • Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.

2
Needs Improvement

Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.

5
Excellent

Names throughput figures, kept calibration and maintenance records current, and cleared assigned tickets or setups without chasing from supervisors.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe where they tightened a workflow: rebuilt a spreadsheet tracker, standardised a request form, wrote an SOP or checklist, reduced equipment downtime or reordering delays.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has changed a process rather than only following one
  • Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
  • Documents so the improvement survives them
  • Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.

2
Needs Improvement

Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.

3
Satisfactory

Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.

4
Very Good

Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.

5
Excellent

Describes a specific procedure they redesigned, plus the before and after in hours saved, errors avoided, or downtime cut.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Test decision boundaries: when they escalate a faulty instrument versus attempting a fix, how they prioritise competing requests from engineers, handling out-of-spec results or missing paperwork.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
  • Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
  • Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
  • Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.

2
Needs Improvement

Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions.

4
Very Good

Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.

5
Excellent

Draws clear lines on what they resolve alone versus escalate, citing a real judgement call and how the supervisor was briefed.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Assess how they brief technical and non-technical colleagues: handover notes, fault reports to suppliers, chasing purchase orders, explaining equipment status to lab or workshop staff.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
  • Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
  • Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
  • Works across time zones or async where the role needs it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.

3
Satisfactory

Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.

4
Very Good

Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.

5
Excellent

Writes concise, dated handovers and fault reports; confirms details in writing and flags slipping timelines before anyone asks.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Technical Assistant

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What is your experience with technical support?

  2. 02

    What types of technical platforms and tools have you worked with?

  3. 03

    How familiar are you with troubleshooting hardware and software issues?

  4. 04

    Can you explain your process for troubleshooting technical issues?

  5. 05

    Can you explain a time where you solved a technical problem for a user?

See the complete Technical Assistant question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards